Friday, January 29, 2010

Demonstration Tomorrow at Baltimore GOP Retreat

The Republican Party holding a big retreat in Baltimore this week. Today President Obama addressed the group, tomorrow Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dick Armey will speak to the group.

There will also be a demonstration tomorrow by health-care reform supporters. The group will be demonstrating outside the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel, 202 E. Pratt Street, in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. The demonstration will begin at noon eleven o'clock [this post has been edited, note update below].

It's interesting to see how the various media have played today's speech by the President. Look at these headlines:

"On Thursday, FoxNews.com reported that Mancrunch.com, a gay dating site, was still waiting to hear if CBS would approve their Super Bowl ad. According to Mancrunch.com reps, "The 30-second spot shows two men excitedly watching the game, before their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Suddenly, the two begin making out, much to the shock of a guy sitting close by."

Today, CNBC.com's Darren Rovell tweets that "Mancrunch.com has just received a formal rejection of its ad from CBS.""

"(Jan. 29) -- Osama bin Laden has lashed out at the U.S. for causing climate change, saying ending global dependence on the American dollar would be the way to solve the problem.

In a brief audiotape aired on Al Jazeera television, bin Laden blamed the U.S. for causing hunger and other disasters across the globe, and said the danger of climate change was "not an ideological luxury but a reality.""

"Sen. Byron Dorgan, who announced he would not seek re-election in November, said Friday President Obama should have focused his first year in office on improving the economy instead of pursuing health care reform."

If you have a spare 66 minutes, watch the entire discussion today between the President and the Republican House members. I think it shows that Barack Obama is the best person we could have to be president, and why if people listen and act like adults, the country will be infinitely better off:

David, if you really think Obama is the best person we could have for president, then your standards are flatlined. . .gone.You probably sent money to Obama's campaign and just keep hoping he was worth your investment.Forgetaboutit.

today at the retreat, Repubs gave him a book full of them that he is free to keep

other advice is flowing in:

"During the President's State of the Union, Obama laid down a challenge to opponents of his health care plan:

If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

This is a tiring theme from the President: Pretend your opponents don't have their own ideas. As Reason's Peter Suderman put it, "Here, Obama, Let Me Google Some Health-Care Reform Alternatives For You":

It's simply not true that reform opponents haven't offered solutions. Here's what I could come up with in about two minutes on the Google:

In The Wall Street Journal, John Mackey suggested eight reforms that would make health insurance more competitive, more affordable, and more responsive to consumer demand.

... In The New York Times, Ramesh Ponnuru explained why mandatory universal coverage isn't likely to be the best way to solve our health-care problems and suggested, instead, that we break the link between employment and coverage and drop state coverage mandates.

There's more out there from smart policy analysts like Arnold Kling and Michael Cannon, as well as from business-minded thinkers like Regina Hertzlinger and David Goldhill.

No, not all of these essays and books come with thousand-page pieces of legislation attached (thanks goodness!), but every one of them offers innovative ideas for how to administer health-care and how to pay for it—ideas that, by and large, Obama has ignored.

These ideas would "bring down premiums" in the individual insurance market, which would help "cover the uninsured" since this is generally the only market available to the uninsured. Obama's plan would raise premiums on the uninsured, but address that problem by forcing them to buy it and apply for a federal subsidy.

These ideas would not add to the deficit, which is something you cannot say about Obama's plan, even though Obama feels comfortable repeating that falsehood.

For a president that is credited as a consensus builder, someone who listens to arguments on all sides before coming to a decision, he is remarkably resistant to free-market reform. It's as it he stuck his fingers in his ears and sang "la, la, la, I can't hear you" whenever anyone tried to tell him about a health reform plan that did not involve expanding the scope of government or making millions of Americans dependent upon the federal government."

"If anything qualifies as a no-brainer, it would seem to be honoring Mother Teresa of Calcutta on a stamp. Not really the biggest laurel the late Nobel Prize winner and sure-fire saint will ever merit, but nothing to sniff at -- especially given the price of a stamp these days.

But of course, you knew someone would find something objectionable about the decision, and in this case it is The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist organization that is organizing a boycott and letter-writing campaign against the stamp, which was one of 23 new issues the United States Postal Service recently unveiled for 2010."

I know; thank the lord most public servants don't assign passages from the Bible, with its discussions of menstruation, onanism, polyamory, rape, and such. Can you imagine anyone encouraging an impressionable child to read such?

The state House, conflicted by emotion and election-year politics, voted yesterday to indefinitely postpone action on a civil-unions bill. The voice vote, which came after no debate, essentially kills the bill this session, since it would require a two-thirds majority to bring the bill back for consideration. Gay rights activists in the House gallery shouted for a roll-call vote on the motion, and when lawmakers quickly moved to other items on their agenda, several screamed "Shame!" as they walked out of the chamber. The state Senate approved a civil-unions bill last week that would give same-sex and heterosexual couples the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage under state law. The vote reached the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a potential veto, a signal to the House and Gov. Linda Lingle. The House, which strongly passed a civil-unions bill last session that would apply only to same-sex couples, also wanted a veto-proof majority. But only a majority of House lawmakers were prepared to vote for the bill yesterday, an indication that political pressure from religious conservatives, including thousands who rallied at the state Capitol earlier this month, had worked.

If Anne like other young girls didn't want her diary published, her wishes were violated decades ago.

Her diary was published to show how life triumphs over being locked up in hiding because others don't like you or your beliefs and want to kill you for them. Exploring her own genitals was a part of Anne's life in hiding.

how about the immature Obama being so rude to the Supreme Court Wed night?

no president has ever done that before

Oh brother, Anone. Do you not read history books or is it that pesky old reading comprehension problem again?

Three previous Presidents have criticized Supreme Court decisions during one of their State of the Union Addresses, including Reagan who did it twice. MediaMatters reports the history of Presidential Supreme Court bashings in State of the Union Addresses here:

"...presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court

Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment."

Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer:

'And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.'

Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:

'And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?

[...]

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.'

Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":

'Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.'"

Do some fact checking once in a while and try to comprehend what you read.